[2026:RJ-JP:1969-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 711/2009 Meera D/o Late Sriram W/o Rajveer, R/o Haweli Ka Nagla, P.S.

Kolari, Dholpur Raj.

----Appellant Versus Rajveer S/o Late Raysal, R/o Sisen Ka Pura, Majra Sakhwara, Tehsil Saipau, Distt. Dholpur Raj.

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ambrish Vashishtha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Judgment

16/01/2026

1. With consent of learned counsel for both the parties and having assistance from the record available with them, we have heard the appeal finally on merits.

2. This is an appeal, by and on behalf of appellant-wife, challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Case No.75/2007 by the District Judge, Dholpur, granting a decree of divorce in favour of respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty.

3. Factual matrix of the case, in nutshell, is that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.04.2000 according to the Hindu rites and ceremonies. Later on, due to matrimonial discord, one FIR on 01.06.2005 was lodged by wife levelling an allegation that her husband and in-laws tried to burn her for demand of dowry. On such allegation, a criminal case for offences under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC was registered; husband and his family members were arrested; later on, after trial they have been acquitted from charges of such offences vide judgment dated

09.05.2006.

4. Thereafter, a divorce petition was filed on 14.06.2007 by the husband stating inter alia that his wife has committed cruelty with him and falsely implicated him in the criminal case. He also stated that after his acquittal in the criminal case, his wife threatened him to commit suicide and to implicate again him in a false criminal case. He prayed for dissolution of his marriage and a decree of divorce.

5. On filing of divorce petition, after service of notice, wife submitted her reply and denied the allegations of cruelty.

6. The Trial Court framed issues and permitted the parties to adduce their evidence.

7. In the evidence, wife appeared as NAW-1 and admitted that she deposed her statements in the criminal case that indeed her husband and in-laws never tried to burn her but at the time of applying ‘Mehndi’ to her hand, her clothes caught fire by an earth lamp laying beside. Her statement recorded in the criminal case were placed on record in the present proceedings of divorce petition as Exhibit A-5 which were accepted by wife to be true and made by her in criminal case.

8. Respondent-husband, in his evidence has clearly deposed that he was falsely implicated for charges of offences under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC and after his acquittal from such charges, his wife threatened him to commit suicide and to implicate him again in a false criminal case. Other evidence of her quarrelsome and non-cooperative behaviour was also led, due to which it was not possible for husband to lead a happy and peaceful life with his fie.

9. After appreciation of evidence of parties, the trial Court concluded that wife has committed cruelty towards her husband; has implicated husband in a false case for offences under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC as much as threatened her husband to commit suicide and to implicate him in a criminal case, hence cumulative conclusion of all such acts of wife is mental and physical cruelty towards husband, sufficient to issue a decree of divorce in favour of husband and finally impugned decree was passed.

10. We find that the fact finding and conclusion recorded by the Trial Court, based on appreciation of the respective evidence of parties is within parameters of law and do not suffer from any vice of arbitrariness or perversity.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, recently in the case of Narsimha Sastry Vs. Suneela Rani reported in 2020(18) SCC

247 has held and observed as under :-

“13. In the present case, the prosecution is launched by the respondent a